Back to the future - the movie

I loved it, but there's absolutely no real science involved in it. This thread should actually be in General Discussion.

 

You're reading waaaayyyyyy too much into the movie.

 

I hope that he meant for you to give an explanation of why time travel is impossible. If he believes in that stuff, he has no right being a teacher.

 

I second this post exactly. Loved the movie, one of my all time favorites along side with 5th element, but there is [practically] no science in it

 

Its not just practically devoid of science, it really is devoid of science.

 

The number 88, if you rotate it 90 degrees you get [tex]\begin{array}{cc}\infty\\\infty\end{array}[/tex] Throw on some parenthesis and you have [tex]\left(\begin{array}{cc}\infty\\\infty\end{array}\right)[/tex] = undefined, the speed in which you need to reach in order to go back to the future.

 

Brilliant!

 

Not drink six beers at the same time?
Brilliant!

 

I especially loved the part when Doc had that look of horror on his face when he discovered that the tank had no gas in it - while they were in 1885

The words that followed will be etched into the memory of anyone majoring in Chemical Engineering today!

Besides in first part there is a huge speaker with amps and subs, and then there is the refrigerator in third part, and many cool gadgets in 2nd part! (Keep in mind this was 1989!!) - 4 years before any practical color video conferencing was even invented!

Frankly, imho, BTTF is the best scifi movie ever made to date. I thought the characters were very well developed and particularly the Doc's character is amazing

 

I think what your teacher wants you to look at are the paradoxes that could ensue from time travel. At least that I remember from the movie was the prospect that Marty would become involved with his own mother and keep her from ever getting with his father. Since this would result in his never being born, he could never have gone back to do it in the first place. Doc Brown warns him about these things.

This is strictly philosophical, though. There is nothing scientific about rationally contemplating paradoxes.

 

There is no scientific theory that states that time travel is impossible

 

"Do you really think I should swear?"

"Yes, damnit George, swear."

My friends and I had a contest in school to see who could go to that movie the most times. We lost count. I know that movie forwards and backwards.

 

Its in my top ten all time favorit movies

http://whatis88.ytmnd.com/

 

You guys will think this is crazy but I was actually seriously considering getting a used DeLorean and adding electroluminiscent strips on side that would be triggered at 88 mph+

and then I wanted to put that same concept on a motorcycle.. and Now im thinking which one to go with.. car vs motorcycle

 

I think you could get all the chicks in this car Fred. You would be the talk of the town anywhere you parked this bad boy. View attachment 5857 There was one like this on ebay a while back. It was an exact replica with working flux capacitor and computer to enter in destination time and arrival time! I was looking for that car on ebay and look what I found!! http://www.bttf.com/forums/ :surprised :surprised :surprised :surprised This movie has a cult following. I think all your anwsers will be found in that site.......sad

 

Whoa. That me be a little more hard core than I ever will be. My friends and I, like most guys, simply like quoting lines. Did you ever find a Delorean on e-bay?

BTW...John Delorean is a fellow alma matter of my college. A little notoriety to start the day.

 

The first time the Doc is shot, he is already wearing the bulletproof vest.

I love the dad and the son's laugh. Me and my dad use it all the time to annoy mom. 'Ah Ah Ah Ah Ah'.

 

Not true, time travel is allowed in certain circumstances by general relativity, so it's a perfectly valid topic for scientific discussion. Most physicists think that quantum gravity will prevent the time travel solutions of GR from actually being possible, but that has by no means been proved yet.

 

Well, the paradoxes show why the idea of "changing the past" within a single history doesn't make sense. There are ways of avoiding such paradoxes though, like the idea that each time you travel to the past you enter a parallel universe where history diverges from the history of the universe you came from, or the idea that history is constrained to be self-consistent, so you will be unable to do anything to change the past. The second solution is the one usually considered by physicists contemplating time travel--see the Novikov self-consistency principle, or the discussion on this thread.

 

While I'm somewhat familiar with the concept from the perspective of ring singularities, split event horizons, antimatter time-reversal invariance and whatnot, I don't believe that it will ever be technologically possible to transfer anything macroscopic into the past in any condition to affect causality. I'm not sure about that, of course, but it seems extremely unlikely to me.